News:

"Forbidden Fruit [L-H]"
Congratulations Mellific & Swashbuckler for completing your RP!

Main Menu

Abortion

Started by Jude, October 07, 2009, 02:23:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Salomé

QuoteI resent its use because it is an attempt to bring loaded language into a debate. 'Murder' is a dirty word.

Removing unwanted matter from the body should be the decision of the host, not random people who live six states away.

In the same way that you resent the use of the word 'murder' to describe abortion, those who view abortion as no better than murder might justifiably be offended by your use of the term "unwanted matter" to describe a human life.

And sorry, I should have clarified: by murder, I meant the legal definition of murder, which means the premeditated killing of a human being.

QuoteIt boils down to when it becomes feasible for this thing, this collection of protein and enzymes and cells, to live outside the womb of another.
Can you please explain this? So are you saying you draw the line at birth? If abortion happens anytime before birth, it's acceptable?
I would still need an explanation/justification, however.

What it really boils down to is that this "unwanted matter" is viewed by some as of EQUAL moral worth as any baby you might see in the hospital, and that it deserves the same right to live. That is why these people, who argue from this perspective, view abortion as murder. Their justification for putting fetuses in the same category as babies might be that "birth" is not enough of a difference between fetuses and babies... essentially, all the things I listed in my original post. What I would like is your take on this: why it is acceptable to "remove" fetuses, but not babies? You cannot simply argue that because the fetus is attached to the mother, the mother should have full control. You must first prove that there is some quality of the fetus that sets it apart from (I suppose, makes them inferior, somehow, to) babies, and makes it okay to kill them.

I think the debate is more about whether moral relativism is "true" or not (whether morals are relative or not) rather than whether it's evil or wonderful. In any case, although the value of moral relativism as a philosophy of ethics might be debated still (and I offer NO opinion on whether it's good or bad or true or false) WHAT moral relativism is, is not debated, it's pretty clearly defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
. What you said sounded like moral relativism.
QuoteWhile there are certain things that are Just Wrong, you do not get to decide what they are for me, nor I for you.

For my murderous rampage against all those not smart enough to dye their hair brown, yes, I might be arrested. But that would be irrelevant. What I'm saying is, regardless of whether I'm arrested or not, would you be able to say, YES, my actions were justified because I was following my personal code of ethics? Or would you decide that the thing I decided to define as "Just Wrong" (in this example, anyone not a brunette), because it was NOT "Just Wrong" in your book, was...wrong?

Law follows majority belief, perhaps, but even if my actions are illegal, it doesn't say anything about the morality of them. Unless your personal sense of morality is intrinsically tied up with the idea of absolute and unconditional obedience to the law--but then you'd be contradicting what you said about everyone getting to pick their own "Just Wrong."

Legality is the reason for me too. But that doesn't make these moral arguments any less important to me; utilitarian arguments are far less effective. I mean I could say something like, "Abortion may or may not be wrong in a moral sense, but statistics show that legalized abortion will have an x number of positive effects on the economy, quality of life, etc. Therefore it should be legalized," but it wouldn't be fly. This kind of thinking just isn't popular, especially because it justifies too much of what may be "immoral," sacrificing the means for the ends.

•about•
The Earth's a cake full of sweetness;
I can (and then there'd be no end to your pleasure!)
Give you an appetite of equal size.
-The Voice


Apologies for my slow responses! Please feel free to give me a kick over PM if necessary.

Neroon

I think that there is a need for some people here to calm down.  Some recent posts seem to have moved from answering Jude's questions or explaining one's personal point of view and instead heve moved into an attempt to convince other to agree with the poster's beliefs.

To repeat the advice given at the start of the thread, keep it civil and if you can't post with a calm mind walk away till you can.  To make that possible, please refrain from using emotive language or from demanding another poster prove this or that.  Thanks.
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

My yeas and nays     Grovelling Apologies     Wiki
Often confused for some guy

Chea

Personally, I'm against abortion in all cases, here's my reasoning.


First of all, I like many antiabortionists, believe that abortion is murder. Its no different than if I kicked a pregnant women down a flight of stairs and killed the child in the process. I aslo believe all children have the right to exprience life. Though I'm athiest and thus don't believe in souls, the unborn child hasn't willingly done anything that would warrant the mother to terminate it. Once you kill someone there'll never be another of the individual, that person will never know life, it'll never have a chance to do anything.

Trieste

Quote from: Jude on October 14, 2009, 04:04:07 PM
But if we make this moral argument a bit more general instead of having it be an incredibly specific notion, the principle becomes, "It is okay to terminate human life if it is dependent on others for survival."  This is where euthanasia and outright infanticide come into play.  You can disagree with the widening of the moral criteria, but it does make you wonder why such a narrow action is okay, but if you try and broaden it at all, it isn't.

To restate what I said about this earlier (in my answers), we have the technology to keep these people alive, so people who are overly disabled, who are dependent on machines but still live, can be kept alive by technology. The difference for me between euthanasia and abortion is medical technology. I've avoided the topic of who should pay for this theoretical fetus-on-life-support and other specifics like that (the short answer is, 'it depends').

I think, if someone has an organism in their body that they do not want, they should be able to remove it. It doesn't matter if it's a tapeworm or a fetus. If people are that concerned with the life of the fetus and how sacred that life is, they can step up and keep said fetus alive. If they can't do so, that is still not the responsibility of the gestational host. Being a 'mother' takes more than donating genes, just like being a father does, and forcing someone into that responsibility is just not my cup of tea. I don't care if it's by abortion or by in situ adoption and subsequent removal.

Serephino

If I'm not mistaken, the widely accepted limit for abortions is 12 weeks.  I don't find that too unreasonable.  Of course at 8 weeks a fetus has all organ systems it would need to live.  I learned a lot when doing research for my fanfic.  So if whether or not the fetus can feel pain is the cutoff point that seems to happen pretty early.

My source for all of this was  http://parenting.ivillage.com/pregnancy/0,,nc26,00.html

I do believe in souls, but I'm not really sure when it enters the body, but I don't think it happens much before birth, so that isn't a factor for me. 


Kate

#205
Quote
First of all, I like many antiabortionists, believe that abortion is murder. Its no different than if I kicked a pregnant women down a flight of stairs and killed the child in the process. I aslo believe all children have the right to exprience life. Though I'm athiest and thus don't believe in souls, the unborn child hasn't willingly done anything that would warrant the mother to terminate it. Once you kill someone there'll never  be another of the individual, that person will never know life, it'll never have a chance to do anything.
- Chea49

Belief 1: believe that abortion is murder.

Belief 2: unborn is a child = individual = person

Belief 3: unborn has a "right" to experience life (inherited from the magical world of right-dom)

Belief 4: Existance of a new human individual is more important than the quality of life of  those effected by it.

Belief 5: Soul's don't exist so one body is one individuals sole chance of life.

Belief 6: Others should share beliefs 1-4.

*

These beliefs are choices.

Some beleive otherwise and wish to live by their own beliefs.

Salomé

If you read over what I wrote, I was never trying to persuade anyone to change their beliefs. That's the opposite of what I want; I never even revealed my stance on this issue.

For the record, if anything I'm a libertarian more than anything else, and "pro-choice" should be my default position. But although I value personal rights and liberty, I also believe that “the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” I may want to support abortion, or the idea that people should have the choice concerning it, but one thing stands in my way--the niggling doubt that the fetus should not be harmed.

I was hoping that someone who was "pro-choice" could explain the reasoning behind their stance--i.e. why it's okay to kill a fetus but not a baby.

The "fetus depends on the mother for survival" argument might be compelling if the mother's life were in danger but otherwise it's just not enough to say that because of inconvenience--and I realize this is a weak word to describe the effects of pregnancy and birth on the mother--it would be permissible to terminate the life of an innocent human being. Unless you challenged this belief itself, but that comes later. That is why the following argument
Quote...If people are that concerned with the life of the fetus and how sacred that life is, they can step up and keep said fetus alive
is not enough--unless the life of a fetus can be said to be less valuable somehow than the life of an infant, then abortion should not be left to personal choice any more than infanticide is.

Chaotic Angel, I think in a sense you have the most compelling argument. Sorry if I'm misinterpreting what you said, but if I may clarify...
So, as long as abortions are carried out at less than 12 weeks of gestation, they are acceptable, because before that, the fetus does not feel pain? Essentially that would mean that merely being human is not enough to qualify the fetus for the right to live--b/c the fetus is undoubtedly human--the fetus must also be able to feel pain, and this ability (or lack therof) to feel pain is what sets the fetus apart from babies. 

My problem with this is that (1) fetuses develop at different rates--a prematurely born baby might be less developed than a fetus--and some fetuses might be, at 11 weeks, quite able to feel pain and (2) is it enough to say that a person's ability to feel pain is what makes it wrong to kill that person? What if you kill someone painlessly? And doesn't this devalue human life, and the whole idea of the sanctity of human life?

-

Oh, and just to throw it out there:

Peter Singer makes a similar argument, and I find his reasoning to be pretty persuasive. You could argue, like Singer, that pain is what gives human the ability to make moral choices, and pick between what's right or wrong. And that that ability to make moral choices is what makes human life valuable in the first place (rather than a religious reason, like "humans are made in the image of God," or "humans have a soul," or the argument that being human, in itself, makes human life valuable). Then a fetus, because it's not morally aware, would be no more "precious" than say, the cow we kill to eat.

But Singer also believes that according to the situation, it's also acceptable to kill babies (as long as it's done in a way that minimizes suffering)--
"...the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings." While I like the consistency of this argument, I'm on the fence about it, esp. trying to argue pro-choice with it, because if these qualities Singer mentions are the criteria for the right to live, then euthanasia becomes acceptable. And I'm also forced to question why this level of self-consciousness, that we have, is enough, but that level is not? It just strikes me as too arbitrary.

•about•
The Earth's a cake full of sweetness;
I can (and then there'd be no end to your pleasure!)
Give you an appetite of equal size.
-The Voice


Apologies for my slow responses! Please feel free to give me a kick over PM if necessary.

Kenshin

Quote from: ReaperWei on October 12, 2009, 07:36:58 PM
When was there even a mention that it was the government's decision?
You have me there, as there was no mention. Although I was talking about it being a law against abortion.

Kenshin

Quote from: Shoutboard Nazi on October 13, 2009, 07:13:17 PM
We do not have the right to police other nations in their laws, no matter what Dubya tried to say.

Similarly, I do not believe that I have the right to police what other women do with their bodies. It is not advocating murder - it is called 'pro-choice', not 'pro-abortion'. I am also not trying to jump on you, Salomé, but I do not have to justify my stances by your morality. While there are certain things that are Just Wrong, you do not get to decide what they are for me, nor I for you.
Hm, I said I was pro abortion because I couldn't remember "pro choice" at the time. My apologies.

Kenshin

Quote from: Chea on October 14, 2009, 09:25:12 PM
Personally, I'm against abortion in all cases, here's my reasoning.


First of all, I like many antiabortionists, believe that abortion is murder. Its no different than if I kicked a pregnant women down a flight of stairs and killed the child in the process. I aslo believe all children have the right to exprience life. Though I'm athiest and thus don't believe in souls, the unborn child hasn't willingly done anything that would warrant the mother to terminate it. Once you kill someone there'll never be another of the individual, that person will never know life, it'll never have a chance to do anything.
So you have created a maxim not to ever kill an unborn child? I think most things under any circumstance are feasible, even murder. My question out of general curiosity is, do you think it is ok for the women to make their own decision about their own baby? I think people should be able to make their own decisions personally. I have heard some stories about abortions that made me sick, however it was their choice and I do not think that should be denied to them.

ShrowdedPoet

My opinions of abortion are. . .conflicted.  One upon a time I was a Christian and solid die hard antiabortionist.  I was in college in the 8th grade and writing papers for my Freshman English one and two classes 10 plus pages long on the wrongness of abortion.  I believed it was worse than murder.  At least if you snatched someone off the street and killed them they'd have a chance to fight back but the unborn baby doesn't even get that. 

But now. . .  Now I am a Pagan and I still believe in the sanctity of life.  I still feel that abortion is wrong and sometimes would liken it to murder.  But here's the difference.  Now when my daughter is grown and if she has an unwanted pregnancy that's her choice.  I will stick by her choice.  I would never get an abortion but I also wouldn't stop people who want one.  At my Christian stage I would have called for the mother to go to jail for murder.  It is the mothers choice.  And it hurts my heart.

As for the rape victim.  I have a friend who is the product of rape and in her own words.

"My mother descided to keep me because I was alive.  My mom loves me.  She is happy that I was born."

She is a sweet woman and I love her to death.  She has two beautiful children.  The world would be a little less bright if she were never born.
Kiss the hand that beats you.
Sexuality isn't a curse, it's a gift to embrace and explore!
Ons and Offs


Autumn Sativus

- What about people who use abortion as birth control?
I don't agree with using abortion as a method of birth control, but I won't take away your right to do so. It is an extremely taxing experience on both the mental and physical health of the woman, if someone would rather put themselves through an invasive, painful, expensive procedure, than use a more 'normal' type of birth control, that is their choice. Kind of a 'I don't agree with what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

- If you are okay with terminating the life because it's "on someone else's property" and "it isn't human yet"; how do you reconcile this with your view on animal rights? (i.e. fetus = not human = animal = animal murder)
I don't agree that it is terminating a life. It is terminating a potential life, and I don't see it as being anything at all. It is a potential child... not an animal. I do believe it's still human, by the way.

- Do you believe in a soul?  If so, how can you know the unborn child doesn't have a soul?
Yes I believe in souls, and I would believe that the fetus has a soul once it has thought. If the pregnancy were terminated after that point, I believe that the same thing would happen to the soul as might happen to might if I passed on... it is renewed in another being.

- Why should the woman get the decision solely on whether or not to abort the child, when the man is equally responsible if she chooses to keep it?
When the man can carry the child in his body for half of the pregnancy, he can have a say in what happens to the fetus. Though the man did help to create the child, he has nothing to do with caring for it, carrying it, and watching his body be taken over by something he may or may not want, before it is born. When the man can take over the pregnancy at the halfway mark, I'll happily let him decide what happens... before then, it's my body, and my decision.

- Typical trite "woman's body" arguments aside (which are more of a slogan than an actual justification); do you believe abortion is justified based on the fetus not being self-aware (or conscious, sentient, etc.) yet?  And if so, what about people who suffer from certain mental illness or reach a certain degree of senility?  Is it possible to support Abortion and not Euthanasia?
If the fetus can function outside of the womb, then I would suggest it be put on some sort of support system until it can fully survive on its own. As long as it is dependent on the woman's body, it's her responsibility to decide what happens to it.
And yes I do believe it is possible to support one and not the other. I don't agree with euthanasia for those with metal disabilities, because the decision was made to take on the responsibility of a child by their parents. Just as with anything else, when parents pass on, we have family and institutions to take the responsibility, for a price. Once the decision has been made to bring a child into the world, it's a little late to go back on it. I can understand pulling the plug on those who are on life-support, if it is the best decision, I could even understand euthanasia for those who are suffering, it is often better to see someone go peacefully than to watch them suffer for too long. But just because of a mental disability... I don't think so.
Us against the world
Just a couple sinners making fun of hell


~~A&A(updated March 2021)~~Tales~~Wants~~O&O~~Wiki~~

Doomsday

I'm under the opinion that a lot of pro-lifers are either thinly-veiled misogynists or un-conscious misogynists.

Doomsday

Quote from: Kate on October 14, 2009, 10:41:06 PM
- Chea49

Belief 1: believe that abortion is murder.

Belief 2: unborn is a child = individual = person

Belief 3: unborn has a "right" to experience life (inherited from the magical world of right-dom)

Belief 4: Existance of a new human individual is more important than the quality of life of  those effected by it.

Belief 5: Soul's don't exist so one body is one individuals sole chance of life.

Belief 6: Others should share beliefs 1-4.

*

These beliefs are choices.

Some beleive otherwise and wish to live by their own beliefs.

Except by legal definition murder is the unlawful taking of a life. You can argue that fetuses are 'alive', but because abortion is legal, it is not murder in any way. In this debate murder is nothing more than a loaded word.

Oniya

Quote from: Darkly Dreaming Doomsday on October 22, 2009, 12:07:11 PM
Except by legal definition murder is the unlawful taking of a life. You can argue that fetuses are 'alive', but because abortion is legal, it is not murder in any way. In this debate murder is nothing more than a loaded word.

As a point of interest, in the Torah the word for 'murder' is the one used in the commandment - which means that lawful killing is not a sin (which is a good thing, if you read some of the punishments codified in Leviticus.)
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Nadir

Do pro-life people protest about life-support machines being turned off?

Trieste

In the US, they do.

Nadir


Morven

God put us on the earth to suffer, 'n all.
NaNo word count: 50,180 (done with NaNo, but not with the story ...)
Ons & Offs (generalities and explanations) | New Ons & Offs (checklist) | Apologies & Absences

Nadir

But... but surely, people in a vegetative state are cheating. I mean, they're sleeping through their suffering. That's just not good sportsmanship.

Trieste

I know. And the social worker people don't like it if you start trying to kick them awake, either.

*mumbles something about a restraining order*

Nadir

Well that just isn't fair! You should protest.

Trieste

Protest the protesters?

Nadir

I'm trying to read that, and my brain is screaming 'Double-negative!' at me, and I can't work out what would get nullified and what would be left behind... ugh